By: Kenneth James Ditkowsky Respect for Law Humor has been a device by which many people who are disaffected by entities of government address their frustration. Corruption in the Courts has plagued even the ancient civilizations. Today, corruption is present everywhere but is particularly alive in various population centers wherein the elderly and the disabled are present in large numbers. Thus, it is not unusual to hear: “What do call it when a plane filled with lawyers crashes and burns?” “A good start!” Indeed, lawyers in general are not respected and not popular members of society. Unfortunately the conception of lawyers by the public is well earned. I’ve had occasion to deal with hundreds of lawyers over the past six decades, five (plus) as an active and practicing law. Until recently I was sheltered from the ‘nadir’ of the profession and I had trouble understanding why the public had so little faith in the 2nd oldest profession. Almost all of the lawyers I dealt with were honest, loyal to their clients, and most important loyal to the law. Most judges were competent and anxious to do their jobs appropriately and advance the Rule of Law. Of course there were some exceptions but in my world 90%+ of the time we could expect a level playing field. This current financial crisis turned mortgage foreclosure proceedings into cafeteria proceedings wherein papers were shuffled with such carelessness that it was not unusual to read that a lender foreclosed and sold a dwelling that it had no security interest. Worse yet was the revolution in the guardianship scenario. Openly and notoriously a cottage industry developed in which a disabling injury could lead to forfeiture of not only property rights for a family, but all human rights. The Americans With Disabilities Act and the legislation of just about every State in the Union limited guardianship to making a reasonable accommodation for the elderly or disabled party. Illinois for example limited guardianship to: Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individuals actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. 755 ILCS 5/11a-3 The limitations on the delegation of authority were largely ignored by corrupt judges, their appointees and lawyers who formed a cottage industry devoted to railroading an individual into a guardianship, isolating him/her from family, friends and prior life so that they could be unimpeded in gaining control of the targeted individual’s money, human rights and civil rights. This action is called “elder cleansing.” A loose dollar attracted a horde of lawyers who were not necessarily discriminating in who they preyed upon or what property they garnered. In the Alice Gore case a corrupt judge and an equally corrupt lawyer engineered her 1.5 million dollar estate to disappear and her mouth to be prospected for gold. They actually mined her teeth so that they could harvest the gold filings. This outrage was not inventoried. In the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 her (and her younger daughter’s) safety deposit box was harvested for a gold coin collection worth approximately a million dollars. This booty was not inventoried. Her home appraised at more a more than $700,000 was sold through a political operative for less than one half of value. Jewelry, antiques, cash in a mattress, and other assets just disappeared; however, the guardian’s fortunes went from rags to riches. As for Mary, she was isolated from her prior life, separated from lifelong friends including two siblings and a younger daughter, removed from her home and moved to an adjacent county in Illinois as her life saving was looted. When friends and neighbors grew concerned and Mary cried for an attorney a cadre of two guardian ad litem, and the attorneys for a guardian appointed by a court ignoring such niceties as jurisdiction and burden of proof ganged together to fight off any inquiry into the criminal activity they promulgated and supported. Consultation with any Constitutional scholar attempting to pass the required knowledge of the constitution test required for pre-teens to enter high school would have told the cabal of lawyers that what they were doing was wrong and contrary to the core values of America. Nevertheless, the lawyers proceeded with 1) railroading Mary into a guardianship, 2) isolating her from her family, friends, activities so that they had free access to her assets and could therefore convert her (and her husband’s) life savings into their loot! 3) Depriving Mary of every human right and right of citizenship. Almost a year after this Mary Sykes fiasco commenced, the younger daughter of Mary, who had engaged more than a ½ dozen lawyers previously to address the obvious felonies of elder cleansing that occurred appeared at my office with a group of Mary’s friends and family to ask me to address the felonies that were openly and notoriously occurring[1]. The cabal of two guardian ad litem, an attorney for the pseudo guardian[2], and a corrupt judge sprung! I received not one, but two threatened telephone calls! When I made inquiry the corrupt judge knowing that she had no jurisdiction over me entered a sanction order against me! It took almost a year before another corrupt judge entered a fine against me so that I could appeal. I did, and won, however, it appears an avalanche of complaint letters to Jerome Larkin resulted in Disciplinary Proceedings. It appeared that I inquired of Mary’s treating physician as to whether or not he considered Mary incompetent and I wrote to law enforcement and demanded an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the Mary Sykes case. I questioned how a court could proceed without obtaining the statutory jurisdiction![3] Such was enough for Jerome Larkin. He and the IARDC did not need evidence. As I would not repent for writing to the Attorney General of the United States he prosecuted me before his kangaroo panels and I was suspended by the Illinois Supreme Court for four years. (That had I stolen Mary’s money I would have gotten a year!) I have not remained silent. I’ve contributed to the din demanding an end to elder cleansing and involved Attorney JoAnne Denison in the quest for Justice. Ms. Denison published pursuant to 47 USCA 230 my demand for an Honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case. Ms. Denison as a reward for being a good citizen and a responsible attorney is currently being railroaded into a suspension of her license – Mr. Larkin and the IARDC consider her disclosing that there is corruption in the Cook County, Illinois courts to be akin to “yelling fire in a crowded theatre.” (This is exactly what the IARDC attorney claimed) On the eve of an assault on humanity and Free Speech by a radical Islamic group (ISIS) lawyer Jerome Larkin and the IARDC sought an interim suspension of Mr. Denison’s license as she continues to exercise her rights under the First Amendment. This assault on the First Amendment clearly demonstrates Larkin’s perfidy and why he should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice, and acting in concert with the elder cleaners. 18 USCA 4, 18 USCA 371, 18 USCA 242. All of the foregoing is routine corruption quite common in Cook County, Illinois. The Illinois legislature in an effort to control and discourage predators from targeting the elderly and the disabled enacted 340 ILCS 20/4 wherein they mandated that reporters such as JoAnne Denison and myself are to be immune from disciplinary action for making the 18 USCA 4 and other reports to authorities. That said, A lawyer who becomes involved with the nadir of the profession has to be prepared for wading knee deep therein. Operation Greylord provided ample proof of the fact that Illinois had some courts that could locate without disruption of their proceedings in North Korea. Even the United States of America sending to jail more than a score of judges and forcing several score additional to retire was insufficient to cure Illinois corruption. Lawyers suggested that the effort was about as effective as spitting in the ocean. However, most of the lawyers applauded the effort and it allowed us to continue to practice law for several decades. The Illinois Supreme Court has not been without its own scandals and corruption, but, as few lawyers argue cases before it, or are affected by it, the public recognizes the problem but the profession ignores it[4]. The court attempts to regulate lawyers by its Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission; however, in a State in which it is estimated that there is a corruption tax of $3008 per capita the public has no delusions as to efficacy of the commission. Lawyers however are intimidated as the commission has the ability to remove them from their practice of law. It has long been known that the commission is corrupt and arbitrary, however, again the lawyers including their ‘union’ i.e. the Chicago Bar Association, Illinois Bar Association, and America Bar Association are impotent and apparently uninterested in protecting the integrity of the legal profession. The appointment of Jerome Larkin as administrator of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission is an example of the corruption that is fostered by the Illinois Supreme Court. With elder abuse/elder exploitation/elder cleansing running rampant Larkin’s brother had a stroke. The brother had a few dollars and this provided the temptation for Jerome Larkin to attempt to squeeze his sister in law out of her property (as the wife of Brother James). Not only was Larkin not ashamed of his perfidy he and his attorney made it public. The following article appeared in the Chicago Tribune. My comments are in red. Family of wealthy Chicago businessman told he moved to Hong Kong Notice that no doctor who had the opportunity to observe James ever suggested that James was unable to manage his money! There is no clear and convincing evidence that James is unable to manage his money. Attorney for James Larkin says hes healthy, doesnt want to speak to family March 21, 2008|By Michael Higgins, Tribune reporter A lawyer for wealthy Chicago businessman James Larkin disputes that his client went missing last fall, saying he merely moved to Hong Kong to live with his second wife. But Larkins family still questions whether he is healthy enough to make decisions for himself. The family has feared for his safety since Larkin, 63, vanished in September, just months after he suffered a debilitating stroke and despite being owed more than $3 million by his former business. Comment: this is a common excuse - Jerome Larkin fears that his brother’s wife would use the money on James and not a dime could be garnered for Jerome Larkin. articles.chicagotribune/images/pixel.gif articles.chicagotribune/images/pixel.gif On Wednesday attorney Peter Qiu showed up in Cook County probate court, saying he represented Larkin and that his client is healthy but doesnt want to speak with relatives. Comment: James has a right to be left alone. The unsubstantiated claims of Jerome Larkin if similar to the claims that he made in the Denison, Amu, and Ditkowsky cases have no credibility whatsoever outside his clout environment. Larkins family reacted with skepticism to the news. If he is well, I am thrilled, his daughter, Lorraine Demma, who attended the court hearing, said Thursday. But it makes no sense that he doesnt want to talk to his family. Its not who he is ... There is definitely a missing person here, and we want him to come home. Qiu and Larkins family now are battling in court over whether Probate Judge Mary Ellen Coghlan should allow Larkin to handle his own business affairs or keep his brother, Jerry, as his temporary guardian. This is the pattern that all these elder cleansing cases follow. When a few dollars reach the table, all the vultures come out to play. James Larkin escaped a ‘nursing home’ and it is apparent that he wanted to get a far away from the miscreants as he could. Too many victims are not able to escape. The relatives have alleged in court documents that Larkins wife, Brigetta Cheung Larkin, had flouted doctors instructions for her husband, skipping his medical appointments and then secretly moving him out of the country without telling family members. Why would a wife have to check with greedy relatives as to her plan for her and her husband? Apparently Mrs. Larkin did not recognize the Divinity of her brother in law and decided on her own she wanted to be rid of him and his ilk. The family said that when they last saw Larkin, he couldnt drive or sign his name and had trouble carrying on conversations. They fear that without a guardian he could be exploited financially. Indeed! The poor fellow just had a stroke. It is interesting that the “family “ was not interested in James’ rehabilitation but only that they would not get his money! James if married – that eliminates the rights of sundry family members! Judging from the events in the Sykes, Gore, Wyman, Tyler et al with a guardian not only would James have been exploited financially but he would have been drugged and stripped of his humanity. Qiu disputed that contention Wednesday in court, saying he spoke to Larkin in September and found him to be very healthy but with no trust in the other members of his family. Qiu asked the judge to remove the guardianship. That should have indicated to the Court that Jerome Larkin was committing a fraud on the Court and had no standing to bring the guardianship proceeding. 755 ILCS 5/11a – 7 requires venue to be in the county in which the ward resides - I do not believe that Hong Kong is part of Illinois. Coghlan did not rule on Qius request but ordered Larkin to undergo a medical examination by an independent doctor in Hong Kong. The judge asked that a current photograph of Larkin be included when the doctor submits a report. Where does Coghlan get the authority to order a person no longer residing in Illinois to do anything? Qiu would not comment Thursday about the case and declined to make his client available for interview. Larkin is a certified public accountant and lawyer who founded a company that sells portable fans that cool by spraying a fine mist. He sold his share of the business for $5.2 million early last year and was paid $2 million upfront, according to court records. After Larkin disappeared, the company, Circulair Inc., was forced to file a lawsuit for court guidance on how to pay Larkin the additional $3.2 million he was owed. Coghlan ruled Wednesday that Circulair could pay the remaining money into a fund that Larkins brother, an attorney, will maintain on Larkins behalf. Where does Coghlan get this authority - Circulair could have issued a check made payable to James and given it to his attorney. It is obvious Jerome Larkin wanted to get his hot little hands on the money. He thus became a fiduciary and ******. I smell some serious tax money owed to the State of Illinois and the United States of America. articles.chicagotribune/images/pixel.gif The family says Larkin suffered multiple strokes on July 4, was hospitalized and spent about a month in a rehabilitation facility. We know whose nursing home housed Jimmy! No wonder he directed his wife to get him the Hell out of there! In a petition to end the guardianship, Qiu filed a one-page report from a Hong Kong doctor who said he examined Larkin on Sept. 29 and found him slightly sluggish but said Larkins mental state was normal. “Interesting! The burden of proof is on the person seeking to establish a guardianship! The standard is clear and convincing! The reason for such a high standard is to protect against this very type of predication. Kerry Peck, the familys Chicago attorney, applauded the judges move for an independent doctor to examine Larkin. As the administrator of the IARDC Larkin owed a duty to the public pursuant to Himmel to report the Judge to the Judicial Inquiry Board (and the IARDC) as she did not follow the statute and did not respect Jimmy Larkin’s civil rights. Mr. Peck was well aware of the limitations of the guardianship act and the Constitutional prohibitions – yet he participated in what amounts to an outrageous usurpation of the rights of both James Larkin and Mrs. James Larkin. It is quite clear that this article indicates the lack of respect for the core values of America that Jerome Larkin exhibits and the disrespect for the public that the Supreme Court of Illinois has in not ordering an immediate suspension of the law license of the attorneys involved in this case. JAMES LARKIN HAS A SPOUSE. IT IS THE STATED POLICY OF THE STATE TO RESPECT THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AND RIGHTS OF THE SPOUSE IN THE MARITAL PROPERTY. The fact that Jerome Larkin has clout does not give him a veto power over the RULE OF LAW. ---------- mjhiggins@tribune I hope that I do not have to explain further [1] The transcripts of proceedings are reported to indicate that each of the lawyers engaged by Ms. Sykes was threatened with IARDC proceedings if the questioned the Court’s actions. [2] It is clear that the mandate of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 and ADA requires that the court hold an actual hearing to ascertain what services, if any may be required before a guardian is appointed. The incompetency must also be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The evidence of the Sykes case was not existent. An e-mail from Adam Stern to Gloria Sykes appears to admit that It was predetermined by the agreement between the two guardians and the attorney for the petitioner to be appointed guardian that Mary would be found to need a guardian. The presiding judge rubber=stamped the order totally ignoring her legal responsibilities. An act of gross corruption. [3] 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 sets out how jurisdiction is to be obtained. The statute provides that the subject of a petition for guardianship must be served with a very special type of summons. The Circuit Court does not print such a summons and there is no record of service of such a summons in the Court file. In fact there does not appear to be any return of service. What does appear is the fact that the sheriff was directed by the petitioner for guardianship to serve Mary a location that everyone including the judge knew she did not reside. The statute requires 14 days prior notice of a hearing on incompetency to be given near (close) relatives such as siblings, children etc. It appears from the Court file that there was in fact no hearing and no prior 14 days’ notice given to anyone. [4] I have appeared a number of time before the Supreme Court of Illinois and argued Terrazas vs. Vance before the United States Supreme Court. Ken Ditkowsky ditkowskylawoffice
Posted on: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:34:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015